CodeMason

sansha: Useful information is available at <a href="http://2ndlaw.com" target="_blank">http://2ndlaw.com</a> - includes a discussion of evolution and the second law.

HRG

Why did Paley notice the watch in the forest ? Because it was so different from the life forms he found there, wasn't it ?

Regards,
HRG.

Oolon Colluphid

Very true. Things get built up -- they’re called ‘bodies’ -- and they eventually break down in a mechanism called ‘death’. That we have death is one of the surest signs that living things don’t break the Second Law. But this is an open system -- animals feed, plants photosynthesise... and they can reproduce. Evolution violates the Second Law in the same way that having babies does.

This is quite an amazing claim. How can embryology -- which has done nothing but support evolution (see eg the leading textbooks on the subject, such as Wolpert’s <a href="http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-850263-X" target="_blank">Principles of Development</a> (Chapter 15: Evolution and Development) and Gilbert’s <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0878932437/toc/202-3061349-8147055" target="_blank">Developmental Biology</a> (chapters include 'Life Cycles and the Evolution of Developmental Patterns' and 'Evolutionary Developmental Biology') -- in some way be refuting evolution?! If reproduction and embryology itself -- er sorry, it’self -- doesn’t violate the Second Law, how the blue hell does having embryos that grow into something slightly different from the parents? That, not huge changes, is what evolution expects. How does a frameshift mutation allowing bacteria to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2" target="_blank">digest nylon oligomers</a> do so (see Negoro et al, 1994, ‘The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas’, Biodegradation 5: 185-194), or the ability of (some) humans to <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/687044.asp?0dm=C1AWN&cp1=1" target="_blank">digest lactose</a> (see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000070" target="_blank">this thread</a>)? How exactly does the fruitfly ultrabithorax mutation that produces a second pair of wings instead of halteres break the Law?



Mutations are a sign that the 2nd LoT is at work. Get him to explain why you can’t cumulatively select the ‘good’ ones.

Remind him too that ‘good’ depends entirely on the ecological niche an organism is in. Smaller than average wings might well be a disadvantage to a bird, making it less able to fly as far, or for as long, as its peers. Unless it’s on a windy, predatorless island, where the economics of building wings, and the danger of being blown out to sea if you use them, would make it better to invest your energy in building better legs. Funny how flightless birds are (or were) always found in such circumstances, and different species in each place, isn’t it?

Tell this imbecile to get hold of a copy of Lewin’s <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198792778/qid=1011611368/sr=1-1/ref=sr_sp_re/202-3061349-8147055" target="_blank">Genes VII</a> and Maynard Smith and Szathmary’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019286209X/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Origins of Life</a>. This is an origins-of-life argument of distraction anyway, and nothing to do with evolution, which is what you get once you’ve got replication. How it starts is a different matter... and one that scientists are working on. See threads passim.

I’ll check in Lewin, but I’m sure I’ve read that mutations are pretty common, something like one per genome -- ie per individual (per replication?). Generally, you’ll only notice the disadvantageous ones; all the neutral ones (eg in the ~95% non-coding DNA -- explain that’s existence, Mr Creationist ) will not show up. The clue is in the phrase “disorders caused by a mutation”. I’m sure that, if they could think, methicillin-resistant Staph a wouldn’t consider their mutation “disadvantageous”. This fool does realise that a huge range of bacterial strains are now actually immune to the antibiotics that used to kill them, doesn’t he? Would myxomatosis-resistant Australian rabbits think themselves disadvantaged by their mutation? If mutations are so rare, how are we managing to study them so thoroughly?

TTFN, Oolon

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

CodeMason

This is very good, I also like Davies' The Fifth Miracle for a general overview of abiogenesis aimed at the popular audience.

Peter Soderqvist

TO SIMULATION
Soderqvist1: Do you really mean that, the evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? If that is the case here, can you describe what kind of physicochemical process is required by evolution, and how this process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

Soderqvist1: the evolution is at work just now!
It is truth that most of mutations are bad for the genome, but that is only a half-truth, because mutation exerts Pleiotropic effects, most of them are bad. But the rest of genome works as a modifier, and these genes exert phenotypic effect on the mutational locus, in short the old genes, take care of this troublemaker! Plants of Tragopogan Mirus, and Miscellus, has evolved within the last fifty or sixty years, they were created when one species fertilized another, producing hybrids. In each case, the hybrid could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two parent species. Two other plant species have also arisen within the past 110 years in this manner, _Senecio_ _cambrensis_ and _Spartina_ _townsendii_.
<a href="http://www.zip.com.au/~andrewj/Library/evo_bio2.html" target="_blank">http://www.zip.com.au/~andrewj/Library/evo_bio2.html</a>

The species I have described arose spontaneously without any human intervention by scientists. It stands to reason that if we can observe natural Speciation, we should be able to create new species in the laboratory. This is indeed the case in fact; the creation of new plants species by hybridization is commonly carried out for agricultural purposes, many of the grains we eat did not evolve naturally. They represent species that did not exist in nature until humans intervened. Plant breeders commonly create new species. Most of the irises, dahlias and tulips that we grow in gardens are members of artificially created species. So are orchids, it is estimated that about 300 new hybrid species of orchid are created every month. Thus Speciation by natural or artificial means in the plant kingdom, or elsewhere doesn't violate thermodynamic laws! Why? Because plants in nature, increase order, by the use of energy, from the soil, air, water, and the sun, and animals eat plants, and humans eat both plants, and animals, in this natural Speciation process, of course this process increases the entropy indefinitely more, outside of Speciation. Simulation, you need strong faith in disorder, if you ignore Speciation in nature!

Soderqvist1: None scientists have testified, in favor of creationism, in these courts of US! The creationists have instead, strange enough, relied upon evolutionist Wickramasinghe 's devastating testimony! If you or other creationists have accredited scientific education, why don't you testify in these courts about it! I mean, creationism of various kinds is not science, according to these courts, and balanced treatment of education in School regarding evolution, and creationism are unconstitutional, hence biological evolution is the only one there, according to court's decision! Why can't you or your creationist fellows, challenge evolutionary data in court, if you can prove your case, or disprove evolutionary biology as science?

Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton
<a href="http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/McLean_vs_Arkansas.html" target="_blank">http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/McLean_vs_Arkansas.html</a>

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES December 10, 1986, Argued June 19, 1987, Decided.
<a href="http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html" target="_blank">http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html</a>

BLoggins02

I hate to admit it, but I do have to thank our cowardly cretinist here (you'd think if he was so sure of his arguments, he'd head over here and debate it with us, maybe he thinks he'll be tempted by the devil or something ).

Anyway, I have to thank the moron because he actually caused me to learn more about the following topics:

Evolutionary Biology
Chemistry
Genetics
Embryology/Developmental Biology

Having thought about the matter, and as usual coming to difficulty imagining how evolution could produce such complex organisms (not that I was favoring creationism AT ALL, but it is hard to get your head around sometimes), I was prompted to buy The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. After reading that book, the material here, and other biology websites and resources, I am now proud to say that you Mr. Cowardly Cretinist are officially and irrefutably a MORON.

I'd say it's time to drop this debate and move to another one because I don't think the guy understands anything not of the spriritual world (and probably doesn't even understand THAT, either), but I won't because I'm learning so much from both sides.

From the creationist side, I'm learning who I should tell my children to stay away from when I have them.

From the "evilutionist" side, I'm actually learning how things work, imagine that!

Anyway, hats off to this moron <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

p.s. - I have a little link on my browser from yourdictionary.com where I double click on any word inside the browser and click the yourdictionary link button and it instantly pops up the little window and gives me the definition(s). Very handy for threads like these.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
<strong>This fool does realise that a huge range of bacterial strains are now actually immune to the antibiotics that used to kill them, doesn't he? </strong>

Forget immune, now there's a strain that actually feeds off vancomycin. Of course, that's adaptation, not evilution.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

sanshaj

Thanks.
That was very helpful. I think I'm kinda getting the general idea now.

Sansha

Quetzal

LOL. That's microevolution . After all, it's still [i]bacteria kind[/b]. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Oolon Colluphid

Wow! Not that I'm surprised of course, but impressive nevertheless. Do you have any refs for that please? Is it Staph a or something else?

We all realise, of course, that a major pandemic of something very nasty is a matter of 'when', not 'if'...

Cheers, Oolon